It has always been my guess that the show was seen as not being highbrow enough for the voters. Oddly enough, John Goodman was always nominated, Laurie Metcalf was nominated four times, winning three, and Roseanne was nominated three times, winning once. So they obviously liked it enough to throw some hardware at the cast.

Such a shame, as this show hold ups better today than nearly all the shows that won during that era. And for what it’s worth, that sitcom is dangerously just as relevant as it was the day it aired.

-The show centered on po’ folk.-Domestic comedies didn’t do as well at the Emmys in the 90’s as in most decades.-While the cast was acclaimed the series wasn’t as critically revered during its airing as it has become in retrospect. -The show’s bitter, sometimes political edge likely turned off some voters.-Roseanne herself was an absurd and sometimes offensive public figure.

A real tragedy Roseanne was never nominted in the series category. A show about overweight, average looking, lower middle class people with serious money problems isn’t exactly the academy’s cup of tea. Roseanne did have a seriously liberal/progressive point of view especially in the middle (and most aclaimed) seasons.

Its also a real tragedy that Roseanne only won one Emmy, yet Candice Bergen has 5! 5! Murphy Brown was an absolute bomb in syndication and hardly anyone remembers it nowadays, but Roseanne had the last laugh as her show is still widley seen in syndication and on cable.

this was, in my opinion, one of the biggest crimes in emmy history. that show was terrific in its early to mid seasons and it holds up today better than so many other things. it’s eery how timely and relevant it remains. funnily enough, they did like the actors a whole lot- not just roseanne, goodman and metcalf, but sara gilbert got nominated twice as well (she was awesome on that show)

but yeah, they have a bias toward middle and working class regular people on tv and that’s sad. it’s the same reason The Middle hasn’t gotten any attention either (that show is the closest thing to Roseanne on the air right now)

Our Tom O’Neil talks about this kind of thing a lot: pure snobbery, plain and simple. It wasn’t considered highbrow or buzzworthy enough; you see the effects of this bias crop up again and again and again…

Also, as someone mentioned already, Roseanne was highly divisive in the culture at the time. There was no one more polarizing. The media took that “Star Spangled Banner” incident, for example, and went after her with a vengeance, and I imagine there were more than a few blue-hairs in the Academy who simply did not want to be seen as excusing or condoning her.

The show really holds up, though; it’s more relevant than ever in many ways.

I think season 1,2,and 4 deserved nominations for outstanding comedy series. Not so much the others

What is season three lacking? A way past its prime Golden Girls was nominated that year along with a somewhat past its prime ‘Wonder Years’ and Designing Women, a show I’ve never cared for. I know some don’t care too much for seasons five and six because the show became more one-liner driven. But I would have nominated all the first six seasons. Though they are different in tone and quality (seasons three, four and five I believe are the best) each of those six seasons, no matter how different, have held up remarkably well.

I’ve never known someone that didn’t like season three. I thought that was the most consistent season of the show, with the earnest, honest familial tensions from the first two seasons now being imbued with more wit and creativity. It’s the perfect bridge between the more lowey first two seasons and the more bitter fourth and fifth seasons. “PMS, I Love You”, “Like, a Virgin”, “The Test” and “Confessions” would be in my top ten episodes of the series. In fact, season three is the season I point to the most when I argue that Roseanne is one of the very best sitcoms. It’s pretty much the only season that’s not divisive.

Roseanne never being nominated for Best Comedy Series is one of the biggest travesties in Emmy history. Not only should it have been nominated multiple times (mainly for seasons 1-5), it should have one at least once (Season 4). But I agree with the consensus; the show was not sophisticated enough for Emmy voters. Maybe it would have fared better in a different time, considering “Family Guy” and “Two and a Half Men” have been nominated for Best Comedy Series recently.

I am glad that Roseanne was able to win an Emmy (though I think she deserved more than one) and, of course Metcalf very much deserved her three wins.